essee; and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction entered into between the assessee and the APSEB should be treated only as finance transaction and not a genuine lease transaction wherein a sum of ₹ 1,60,18,854 was advanced by the assessee to the APSEB. However, the Assessing Officer excluded from the gross total of income, the leased rental offered for taxation by the assessee to the extent of ₹ 14,63,322 (rupees fourteen lakhs sixty-three thousand t .....

onfirmed the order of assessment in so far as it relates to rejection of claim for depreciation in respect of the machinery/equipment in question purchased from the APSEB and leased back to the APSEB. The Tribunal, by means of its order dated October 30, 2001, rejected the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the correctness of the order annexure G passed by the appellate authority. From above observations it is clear that the assessee did not provide certain details as required by the Asses .....

ds of the assessee (sic. APSEB) WDV in hands of previous owner could have been confirmed. It can be nil due to dep[recitation allowed @ 100% but it does not mean that the asset had no market value. details of depreciation claimed by the previous owner, It could be informed and it can be 100% of cost considering the nature of machinery, but it does not mean that the market value of asset was nil or cost of asset in hands of assessee was nil. APSEB also could have confirmed that on sale, the sale .....

r dated March 25, 1999, stating that some of the details called for by the Assessing Officer had already been furnished. From observations in the judgment we find that before the CIT (A) a valuation report was furnished to establish existence of asset. This seems to be a superfluous document. Because the valuation may not be much relevant, the price can be negotiated between parties. Furthermore, an asset which is already is use and is being used is valuable asset, irrespective of fact that the .....

t the transaction was sham and to avoid tax, it was finding of fact, and not being perverse or patently wrong, the High Court and the Supreme Court could not interfere into the same. What assessee missed? In case of sale and lease back transactions certain facts in ground realities are important, and therefore, in such circumstances the transactions must satisfy the factual ground realities. Some of such realities could have been brought on record if the transactions was planned properly. For ex .....

and machinery was due for over haul, the same could be sold, transferred and handed over to the buyer. The buyer gets the plant and machinery insured, and make arrangement for other insurance like workmen s insurance for the purpose of overhaul of plant and machinery purchased. Buyer could have dismantled it, overhaul it with necessary material, spares, and technology by deploying technical team at its own cost. After such overhaul, repairs, etc. The same could be delivered back to the previous .....